Heritage Foundation: A book event- While the Left likes to pretend that they oppose bullying with all their heart and soul, Ben Shapiro, editor-at-large of Breitbart.com, argues that in reality the Left is the greatest purveyor of bullying in modern American history.

Bullying has morphed into the go-to tactic used to quash opponents through fear, threat of force, violence, and rhetorical intimidation on every major issue facing our nation. Whether playing the race card, the class card, or the sexism card, any and every means is invoked to demonize the opposition.

By creating a climate of fear, ordinary Americans are forced to abandon their principles, back abhorrent causes, or simply remain silent. In Bullies, Shapiro examines the hypocrisy of the Left and shows that no target is off limits in the campaign to shut down political debate in the name of political correctness.

Ben Shapiro, editor-at-large of Breitbart.com, is a summa cum laude and Phi Beta Kappa graduate of UCLA (which he entered at the age of sixteen) and Harvard Law School. At seventeen, he became the youngest nationally syndicated columnist in the United States. He is the author of the national bestsellers Brainwashed, Porn Generation, and Project President, and currently runs Benjamin Shapiro Legal Consulting based in Los Angeles.

MUST see tactics and strategy for fighting the bullies on the left (and they're ALL bullies) from Breitbart's brave and brilliant prodigy and successor, Ben Shapiro. How refreshing: effective directions and guidance.

Hi, my peeps. Not up to speed yet .. in almost every way .. but I HAD to make sure this got out there. Ben’s totally on target. I urge you to take the time to hear the entire talk .. he’s brilliant and courageous... thank the good Lord, another fearless Andrew in our midst. God bless and protect us all and preserve our dear nation.

2
posted on 02/05/2013 4:47:05 PM PST
by STARWISE
(The overlords are in place .. we are a nation under siege .. pray, go Galt & hunker down)

The "media" are the worst. Bad-mouth their selected boy-king and they will dig up anything and everything on you (legally or illegally) and spin it in the worst possible light (Sarah Palin emails?), all while ignoring anything bad by the Left.

The "media" need to be smacked down very, very hard.

6
posted on 02/05/2013 5:09:13 PM PST
by jeffc
(The U.S. media are our enemy)

The left-wing media establishment -- whether it's "news," entertainment (and there's less and less difference between those two branches these days) or propaganda films disguised as documentaries -- are in the habit of digging up dirt on any Republican candidate or public figure, but will ignore any dirt on any Democratic candidate. That's how Matt Drudge made a name for himself -- by picking up some dirt on Bill Clinton that had first been offered by Monica Lewinsky to the mainstream media, which ignored it.

Good talk, but Shapiro had four chances to correct Piers Morgan on the “assault” weapon lie and failed doesn’t speak to good tactics. That said, he walked into the lions den and put Piers on the defensive on his own show. For that he deserves a lot of credit. Let’s go on the offensive.

I have a hard time describing libs as bullies or that we live in fear of them. We just haven’t been pushed far enough. We know we can squash liberal punks like bugs. We just choose not to, in perhaps a naive desire to see them come to their senses.

our side should have gone after the media decades ago and very much so in the last 8 years.

If we had gone after them then the left, feces sex homo’s and left over hipies would not have advanced their agenda to the ignorant masses we have today.

Our side wiht a voice should be going on their shows and calling them out in front of their viewers minus MSNBC NBC, they can piss off.

Say why do you ask me that but you have not informed your viewers why obama and his admin gave guns to drug lords and now calls for our guns to be harder to get?

or

you mention homosexuality and yet you never once put on your screens how the homosexuals live unhealthy, have more diseases, from feces, mock religious figures on their parades or even how they have public sex on the streets at the folsom fair, why is that, is it because you don;t want your viewers to know what is really happening under obama and how your agenda might be hurt if your viewers find out

“We know we can squash liberal punks like bugs. We just choose not to”

IMO, it’s no different than having cancer and “letting it” metastasize.

Isn’t it time that we stop blaming them, or anyone else but ourselves for the country we’ve encouraged, voted for, tolerated, and have now settled for? Or is it time to shake off the punch in the face that we repeatedly keep putting our face out to get?

The "media" are the worst. Bad-mouth their selected boy-king and they will dig up anything and everything on you (legally or illegally) and spin it in the worst possible light (Sarah Palin emails?), all while ignoring anything bad by the Left. The "media" need to be smacked down very, very hard. - jeffc

The left-wing media establishment -- whether it's "news," entertainment (and there's less and less difference between those two branches these days) or propaganda films disguised as documentaries -- are in the habit of digging up dirt on any Republican candidate or public figure, but will ignore any dirt on any Democratic candidate.

To me, the fundamental thing to understand about the media is that its a fools errand to try to hold fictional entertainment accountable for bias. Granted that there is the occasional nonfiction documentary which is actually fiction, the linchpin of propaganda support for leftism is objective journalism. Without support from objective journalism, the other forms of leftist propaganda would IMHO matter less than they do, perhaps almost not at all.

So to me the question is how to oppose the leftist slant in journalism. People dont want to face up to that challenge; they prefer to say the media because they are afraid to challenge journalism as such. They expect to be called an opponent of objectivity. The good news is that intellectually/philosophically objective journalism is actually a juicy target, for three reasons:

journalism is a monopoly in America. Absurd? No, it is observable and demonstrable both empirically and philosophically. Philosophically, Adam Smith famously observed that

"People of the same trade seldom meet together even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public or some contrivance to raise prices."

You would be hard put to name a trade in which people . . . meet together more than journalism. The least of it is that the output of every newspaper and broadcast news organization is in the public domain, readily accessible to all of the others. But that is the least of it because the mainstream media journalistic organizations are all members of the Associated Press. As such, the AP newswire constitutes a virtual meeting of the mainstream media which has been in session continually since the middle of the Nineteenth Century.

So unless journalisms interests are inherently congruent with the public interest, we have every reason to assume to the mainstream media thereby engage in a conspiracy against the public. But are journalisms interests inherently congruent with the public interest? Just ask them, and they will take offense at the very idea that that could be in question. But what are journalisms interests? The question must be seriously addressed and, if that is done, we will see that they are indeed easily distinguishable from the public interest. The interest of journalism is, quite simply, to attract attention for fun and profit. If they do not attract attention, they will not get paid. And if they do attract attention, they gain influence and thus the satisfaction that come with being taken seriously. Who among the general public has never wished for the influence which journalists take for granted?

The methods of journalism easily distinguish journalisms interest from the public interest. The famous blind, deaf, and dumb monkeys see, hear, and speak no evil - but journalists wouldnt have much to say if they emulated that. It is more true that they see, hear, and speak no good. No news is good news because good news isnt news. The things which happen according to plan do not often make the news. It is rather the things that happen which are unexpected - the proverbial man bites dog - which makes the attention-grabbing headline. It can of course be argued that the identity of the winner of a lottery is a surprise, but if the lottery is drawn it is expected that someone is going to win. But other than the identity of the winner of a lottery, or a sports championship, positive news on a major scale is seldom seen. But a house can burn down in a matter of hours, providing an unexpected change in someones fortunes.

Big changes which are bad news are the staple of journalism. They undoubtedly interest the public, precisely because the facts represented by bad news are detrimental to the public interest. The fire department of the local community is an embodiment of the public interest in preventing the loss of buildings to fire. The destruction of a building by fire becomes a great story for journalism while the public interest suffers for it.

Furthermore journalism, colluding against the public, claims that journalism is objective even as journalists sully the reputations of those upon whom the public depends to get things done. But journalisms testimony in favor of journalists is tendentious and self-serving in the extreme. Journalism is a mutual admiration society for generating propaganda in favor of journalists. You cannot join such an organization, knowing how it behaves, and be objective. For the simple reason that it is no different than claiming objectivity for your own self - and no one can actually know that they are objective in fact. It is possible and laudable to attempt to be objective - and even to say so - but the discipline of attempting objectivity requires you to be open about any possible reason why you might not be objective. And you cannot submit to that discipline while claiming that you actually are objective.

Also, since the rise of "investigative journalism" stemming from Watergate (mostly), "reporters" have had visions of Pulitzer Prize sugar plums dancing in their heads.

Compound that with the "belief" of those going into Journalism of "changing the world", and you have a prescription for liberals that make university journalism professors (who are leftists themselves) salivating at training a whole army of mushy-headed lefty "reporters" who have no real interest in just reporting the "news".

Since those on the Right tend to be more thoughtful, reflective, and actually respect the idea of free speech and real freedom, they rarely push back hard on the Lefty's in-your-face radicalism, hence we seem to be either non-existent or readily accepting of whatever agenda the Lefties push (as we seem always to be out-numbered and out-"gunned" in liberal strongholds - universities and newsrooms).

Either way, they tend to not have any respect for those on the Right. How do we go about changing that? Arguing with a liberal is like the old computer saying, "nailing jelly to a tree". Lefties are hard to pin down as they jump from one straw man argument to another when they see they're losing. And that's if they even hear what you say; once they realize you're on the Right, they tune you out, close their minds and babble like a cretin. Hard to fight or work against.

19
posted on 02/06/2013 7:29:55 PM PST
by jeffc
(The U.S. media are our enemy)

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.